[untitled]
9 comments
So now filming livestock is "terrorism". Maybe soon copyright violations will be considered terrorism too?
Judging by fines and jail times they already are.
Aaron Schwartz?
They wanted to make an example. They made one. But not the one they intended to.
>Violators would be placed on a "terrorist registry."
They've already pulled it off with the ELF. Why stop at the radical environmentalists when you can manage to take down a meat packer with a hidden video camera too? The ELF's arson spree was wrong, but labeling it "terrorism" was an insult to terrorists everywhere. This isn't even an insult. It's just insanity.
They've already pulled it off with the ELF. Why stop at the radical environmentalists when you can manage to take down a meat packer with a hidden video camera too? The ELF's arson spree was wrong, but labeling it "terrorism" was an insult to terrorists everywhere. This isn't even an insult. It's just insanity.
The problem is that the meaning of the word "terrorism" is stretched over too far a scope, from things that a gang might do to full-blown acts of war like 9/11.
Arson to further a political goal is terrorism.
Exposure of existing practises is not terrorism.
Exposure of existing practises is not terrorism.
wasn't the point of the arson to terrorize people into doing what ELF wanted?
From what I remember, the arson wasn't committed by just some twisted fire starter.
From what I remember, the arson wasn't committed by just some twisted fire starter.
If "defamation" is the key here, at least truth is a complete defense to defamation.
It would seem that more and more acts of "exposing injustice" are being successfully criminalized, by successful corporate lobbying in one form or another.
Just like the security theater we experience, how long will it take before it is perceived as totally normal, and just "the way things are, how could it be any other way"? Not long, I fear. This is the part that I find most frightening.
Just like the security theater we experience, how long will it take before it is perceived as totally normal, and just "the way things are, how could it be any other way"? Not long, I fear. This is the part that I find most frightening.
We have an open investigation going on about this issue on the front page OpenWatch (https://openwatch.net). On our platform, anyone can do research or conduct interviews on the public record, similar in a way to something like "Github for Journalism". We only launched a few weeks ago, but are advancing the technology quickly and would love to use the power of our platform to fight these types of bills.
Disclosure: I am one of the co-founders of OpenWatch.
Disclosure: I am one of the co-founders of OpenWatch.
This seems like a violation of the first amendment’s freedom of speech protections. It's offensive regardless of any alignment with animal protection groups.
If cutting animals' legs or beaks is considered best practice, maybe farmers need to reconsider best practice.
I've read about machines for maximizing egg harvest and they are nothing short of evil.
EDIT: Next law - Any written material that depicts or criticizes farming procedures is considered terrorist act.
I've read about machines for maximizing egg harvest and they are nothing short of evil.
EDIT: Next law - Any written material that depicts or criticizes farming procedures is considered terrorist act.
It's already been tried for some foods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
> "The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act"
This kind of perverted terminology is what I would expect of a fascist state. Playing such transparent mind games does not shine a very bright light on the lawmaking process.
This kind of perverted terminology is what I would expect of a fascist state. Playing such transparent mind games does not shine a very bright light on the lawmaking process.
What's necessary is for a concerted multi-state initiative to render illegal the passage of state laws lobbied for by organizations such as ALEC. Yes, this is a recursive problem: such legislation would appear to fall foul of itself. But if we add a rider that only laws lobbied for by organizations drawing funding from commercial entities or their cut-outs (e.g. charities funded by commercial entities) would be banned, then it might be workable ...
No, no, this must be a step in the right direction - it brings animal rights up equal to those of human children!
After all, if you see a child being sexually abused and use your phone to record it on video as evidence for the police, you've just committed a crime by creating illegal child pornography. (In most parts of Europe & the USA, at any rate. Seriously.)
It's a crazy world that we live in...
After all, if you see a child being sexually abused and use your phone to record it on video as evidence for the police, you've just committed a crime by creating illegal child pornography. (In most parts of Europe & the USA, at any rate. Seriously.)
It's a crazy world that we live in...
"Freedom" is slowly losing its meaning.
Did "freedom" ever have real meaning? Or are we finally experiencing what we used to only do to "others" somewhere "over there"?
As an ideal yes. In practicality some small part of people will never be truly free (i.e. people with aggressive tendencies). It's not something humanity should abandon because it can't be obtained.
[deleted]
------------------------
Seriously, this would be hilarious if it weren't so malevolent and deranged.
Can't record interactions with cops, can't published leaked information despite being under no formal legal obligations not to, can't bring lawsuits if a judge can find any fig leaf to say you lack standing. And now this.